ILNews

Tea party radio ad opposes David’s retention; Shepard gives backing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis Tea Party Corp. has produced a radio advertisement critical of Justice Steven David ahead of his retention vote on Tuesday.

David, who was appointed to the court in 2010, has faced opposition due to his 2011 opinion in Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana. David wrote for a 3-2 majority that there was no right to reasonably resist unlawful residential entry by police. The Legislature reacted this year to public outcry, passing SEA 1, which said such a right does exist.

In response to the unusual opposition to a retention vote, David was authorized by the Judicial Qualifications Commission to create a website, www.justicestevendavid.com. Appellate judges typically may not campaign for retention unless they encounter active opposition.

David said in a recent interview with the Indiana Lawyer that, “It’s important to look at a person’s body of work rather than one decision.” He noted taking part in more than 150 Indiana Supreme Court decisions since his appointment, more than 30 of which he wrote.

In the tea party radio ad, an announcer says, “For hundreds of years, your home was your castle. … As a result of Justice Steven David’s opinion, your home is no longer your castle … Is Justice Steven David a judge Hoosiers want on the Indiana Supreme Court?”

The tea party website, www.indianapolisteaparty.com, says the ad is airing statewide. Representatives of Indianapolis Tea Party Corp. did not respond to messages seeking comment.

David recently published an endorsement on his website from former Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who wrote, “It is good for Indiana that Steve David hears the call of public service, and we should vote to retain him in office with confidence that we’re lucky to have him.”

Shepard also endorsed other appellate judges up for retention as well as the process that placed them on the bench. “Indiana’s system of merit appointment and retention has saved us from the sort of unseemly judicial political campaigns so visible even in the states around us. And it has promoted able people to the bench. The public’s knowledge of this fact has produced higher voter participation and higher voter approval over time,” Shepard wrote.

Also on the statewide retention ballot Tuesday are Justice Robert Rucker and Court of Appeals Judge Nancy Vaidik. Court of Appeals Judge John Baker will appear on ballots in COA District 1, 53 mostly southern and central Indiana counties excluding Delaware, Hamilton, Madison and Marion counties; and COA judges Michael Barnes and Paul Mathias will appear on ballots in District 3, 20 counties in northern Indiana.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • voters exercise their free speech rights; usual cheerleaders for democracy and free speech frown upon it
    Democracy, democracy, democracy, except when it threatens powers-that-be! If the unwashed masses dare disagree with a law decision abolishing an individual right cherished by free Enlgish and Americans since the Magna Carta, then they are "extremists." Bah!
  • Vote No to Extremisim
    I would say no extremisim should be welcomed. Not from Tea pariers, Move Oners, 99 percenters, or the 47 percenters, NOR any liberalist, conservitivist, libetarianist, greenist, socialist, communist, facist, anarchist, agnostic..ist. No one should be welcomed or have any say or opinion of those in our legal system. U scary!
  • Merit Selection
    Tea Party extremism is not welcome in our Legal System of Justice: RETAIN STEVEN DAVID

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

    2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

    3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

    4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

    5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

    ADVERTISEMENT